It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
And straight couples have been destroying the sanctity of marriage long before any gay couple has had a chance to.edit on 9-2-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
Do you think gays should be allowed to join together in a contractual union EXACTLY the same as that of a man and woman when they get married, EXCEPT they can't call it marriage? Is that really the only problem you have?
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
That's exactly what I thought. And even though you can't speak for everyone else ,I've always suspected they thought the same. And I think I'm right. And I'm sorry, but you have to admit, that's not fair. If any sort of benevolent god really exists, I dare you to say that to him when you die. Really. Que cojones.
Originally posted by Rren
So, let me see if I get this....
I can go to Vegas, meet a stripper, "fall in love," head to the local drive-thru chappel and get married by an Elvis impersonater, then, a week later get divorced. All this is perfectly legal and, apparently, doesn't destroy the "sanctity of marriage." Good so far?
Originally posted by L00kingGlass
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
That's exactly what I thought. And even though you can't speak for everyone else ,I've always suspected they thought the same. And I think I'm right. And I'm sorry, but you have to admit, that's not fair. If any sort of benevolent god really exists, I dare you to say that to him when you die. Really. Que cojones.
I'm not the one being disrespectful! Why do gay people have to copy-cat, and trample all over our sacred institutions? I'm beginning to think some gay people like being provocative and mean.
If a gay person wanted to have a partnership ceremony with someone of the opposite sex then they can have a "marriage™". That's what we've been doing for thousands of years, why do you want to barge in like that and make straight people feel bad for not wanting to change it? Not very nice at all.
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
really don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you keep it there.
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
Originally posted by L00kingGlass
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
That's exactly what I thought. And even though you can't speak for everyone else ,I've always suspected they thought the same. And I think I'm right. And I'm sorry, but you have to admit, that's not fair. If any sort of benevolent god really exists, I dare you to say that to him when you die. Really. Que cojones.
I'm not the one being disrespectful! Why do gay people have to copy-cat, and trample all over our sacred institutions? I'm beginning to think some gay people like being provocative and mean.
If a gay person wanted to have a partnership ceremony with someone of the opposite sex then they can have a "marriage™". That's what we've been doing for thousands of years, why do you want to barge in like that and make straight people feel bad for not wanting to change it? Not very nice at all.
I'm sorry man, but that pretty little "™" you put in there on the word marriage - if that's a trademark I assume there's some patent or copyright or some official document to validate your claim? Please, please, show me that patent, if it really exists, 'cause I really have to think you just made that up. This is ATS, deny ignorance and show me why you and others with the same argument think you own that word!? Really, I mean pics or it didn't happen!
And as for changes, nothing changes, straight people like you and ME can still get married however, whenever, wherever and with whomever we choose. As we have been able to only for a a very small period of recent time. Shall we go back to arranged marriages and segregation too? Or maybe some slaves would be nice to do the laundry..?
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a quotation from William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, meant to say that the names of things do not matter, only what things are.
In the play Romeo and Juliet, the line is said by Juliet in reference to Romeo's house, Montague which would imply that his name means nothing and they should be together.
Juliet:
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Romeo:
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
Juliet:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
Romeo:
I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.
[1]
Originally posted by L00kingGlass
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
That's exactly what I thought. And even though you can't speak for everyone else ,I've always suspected they thought the same. And I think I'm right. And I'm sorry, but you have to admit, that's not fair. If any sort of benevolent god really exists, I dare you to say that to him when you die. Really. Que cojones.
I'm not the one being disrespectful! Why do gay people have to copy-cat, and trample all over our sacred institutions? I'm beginning to think some gay people like being provocative and mean.
If a gay person wanted to have a partnership ceremony with someone of the opposite sex, then they can have a marriage™. That's what we've been doing for thousands of years, why do you want to barge in like that and make straight people feel bad for not wanting to change it? Not very nice at all.
edit on 9-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
That's all very well and good, and sounds quite liberal on the surface, but again, are you really arguing that "tradition" or "christianity" has some sort of monopoly on the word "marriage"??!! ?Cause I'd like to see the precedent for that one....!
Originally posted by L00kingGlass
Originally posted by internationalcriminal
reply to post by L00kingGlass
That's exactly what I thought. And even though you can't speak for everyone else ,I've always suspected they thought the same. And I think I'm right. And I'm sorry, but you have to admit, that's not fair. If any sort of benevolent god really exists, I dare you to say that to him when you die. Really. Que cojones.
I'm not the one being disrespectful! Why do gay people have to copy-cat, and trample all over our sacred institutions? I'm beginning to think some gay people like being provocative and mean.
If a gay person wanted to have a partnership ceremony with someone of the opposite sex, then they can have a marriage™. That's what we've been doing for thousands of years, why do you want to barge in like that and make straight people feel bad for not wanting to change it? Not very nice at all.
edit on 9-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)